I'm afraid "It's true because I say so" carries no weight in the Physical & Life Science forums.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm afraid "It's true because I say so" carries no weight in the Physical & Life Science forums.... as far as the OP and creation is concerned, God has not left anything to chance, He has planned and designed everything according to His purposes.
Which, if true would mean that the very first experiment in genetics would be bonkers. The ratios of features observed by Gregor Mendel match exactly a random distribution of genes.I think the best answer I can give is that as far as every creature that has ever existed is concerned, they have come about directly as a result of our God's creativity and intelligence, and power. He has left nothing as far as His creation is concerned, to chance.
Haven't you made these same arguments before, and weren't your arguments refuted before as well? Why do you keep raising the same flawed arguments again and again?according to evolution if we will find a self replicating robot (or a watch) that made from organic components, we need to conclude that such a robot evolved by a natural process. this is because it has a self replicating system and made from organic components, so its basically like any other walking creature. but we know that even such a robot\ watch is evidence for design. therefore nature need design too.
we also find these gears in nature, and we know that gears are the product of design:
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...the-first-time
Of course a parallel question might be asked. Why do we continue to refute these flawed arguments with the same body of well founded argument, sound logic and abundant evidence? Clearly this isn't a thread on Christian Forums. This is Ground Hog Day.Haven't you made these same arguments before, and weren't your arguments refuted before as well? Why do you keep raising the same flawed arguments again and again?
Of course a parallel question might be asked. Why do we continue to refute these flawed arguments with the same body of well founded argument, sound logic and abundant evidence?
Clearly this isn't a thread on Christian Forums. This is Ground Hog Day.
I'm sure that Xianghua is just as baffled as we are. He is absolutely and completely convinced that functional complexity is evidence of design--regards it as an obvious and objective truth. He can't understand why we won't acknowledge it.
Or do what he's done now - walk away with no response, then start a new thread with the same nonsense pretending he has something new and irrefutable.And when he backs himself into a corner trying to argue one thing, he'll waffle and start arguing the exact opposite.
first, a pndulum needs about 3 parts as starting point. so 3 parts at once isnt "small steps". second, we can answer theoretical questions in science. so do you agree that if we will find a self replicating watch we will need to conclude design or not?Who knows? there's no such thing as a self replicating watch...
We've been through all this nonsense repeatedly pointing out how your analogies fail every time through equivocation and false equivalence fallacies.
Having said that, systems that behave like clocks can be produced by selective evolution:
Not unless there is evidence of design.first, a pndulum needs about 2 parts as starting point. so 3 parts at once isnt "small steps". second, we can answer theoretical questions in science. so do you agree that if we will find a self replicating watch we will need to conclude design or not?
maybe because its never been refuted?Haven't you made these same arguments before, and weren't your arguments refuted before as well? Why do you keep raising the same flawed arguments again and again?
maybe because its never been refuted?
So, we can add pendulums (pendula?) to the list of things you don't understand...first, a pndulum needs about 3 parts as starting point. so 3 parts at once isnt "small steps".
That depends how you define a watch. All known watches are designed and non-replicating. We don't know how to design a self-replicating watch.... do you agree that if we will find a self replicating watch we will need to conclude design or not?
I have the impression that he has at times advanced the idea that functional complexity is evidence of design. That's apparently why he makes arguments to the effect that if man-made robot penguins are designed, a real penguin must have been designed as well.Has xianghua ever explained what his criteria for design is? I don't seem to recall him ever clarifying that.
Please tell me that magical animal cars will, with ill deserved confidence, be soon hoving into view.according to evolution if we will find a self replicating robot (or a watch) that made from organic components, we need to conclude that such a robot evolved by a natural process. this is because it has a self replicating system and made from organic components, so its basically like any other walking creature. but we know that even such a robot\ watch is evidence for design. therefore nature need design too.
we also find these gears in nature, and we know that gears are the product of design:
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...the-first-time
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?